Last month I attended a grants ceremony arranged by the Sydney based animal welfare group, Voiceless. The ceremony also saw the launch of a report into the conditions faced by meat chickens in Australia. Titled “From Nest to Nugget”, it is very thoroughly researched and contains a wealth of facts. It was given some extra gravitas by being launched by former New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, who also contributed a Foreward to the report.
Despite having seen him on the news hundreds of times over the years, this was actually the first time I had seen him speak live. He does have an authoritative speaking style, and while I must admit I found myself wishing he’d spoken out on the issue a bit more strongly while he was Premier, he still spoke with conviction.
It is easy to be dismissive about the notion of cruelty towards meat chickens – also sometimes known as broiler chickens – who are sometimes confused with layer hens, (most of whom also live highly unpleasant lives of suffering, albeit usually for a bit longer). When 450 million of them are killed and consumed by people in Australia in a single year, it is easy to assume that there isn’t a great deal of concern for the conditions these birds live in for their short existences.
But I believe there are growing signs that more people are willing to support changes to reduce the serious suffering faced by many animals reared for food, as more in the community are made aware of the facts and recognise that often they do have consumer power.
There was significant example of this in the UK over the weekend, when Sainsbury’s – one of the four major supermarket retailers in Britain – announced they would stop selling eggs produced by caged hens. Reportedly this means that “more than half a million hens will no longer be kept in the tiny cages – and 2.5million fewer battery-farmed eggs will be sold each week,” so it’s a single decision leading to a major improvement in hen welfare. And it seems from these comments from Sainsbury’s egg buyer that they see this lower-cruelty option as a potential advantage against their competitors:
“We are delighted that all Sainsbury’s shoppers will now enjoy higher welfare eggs whilst the other major retailers still continue with over half their eggs coming from caged hens,”
This site by Animals Australia states that McDonald’s in the UK have also already swithced to using only cage-free eggs. The fact that has happened in Britain but not at McDonald’s in Australia can only be put down to public awareness and pressure.
Last year in the UK, there was a significant increase in the sale of poultry raised with better welfare standards, following some significant media publicity featuring Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, a celebrity chef over there.
This report says that the RSPCA (UK) are hoping a new TV program featuring Jamie Oliver – a celebrity chef here as well as the UK – will help with their campaign to make similar improvements in the lives of pigs.
The conditions faced by pigs in NSW were also the subject of a report released by Voiceless a few years ago. The report was endorsed by other major welfare organisations in Australia such as Animals Australia, Humane Society International (HSI), Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), (although I’d have to say the pace of any positive change since then has been fairly minimal.)
My impression is that, in general, the UK and Europe are more advanced than Australia when it comes to treatment of farm animals – although one can always point to exceptions – and there is less of the undertone of mockery that is still present in some of the political and mainstream media coverage of welfare issues for these animals. But it still provides examples that the more solid credible evidence is compiled about the reality of animal suffering, and the more the general community is informed and recognises they do have consumer power, the closer we are coming to a critical mass where the right set of circumstances and people can combine to get some significant shifts.
Disclosure: I recently received a grant from Voiceless to compile a guide on campaigning and lobbying for animals.
11 Comments
This is good news, but as always on animal welfare Australia is behind the eight ball. What can I do to make sure we make the same progress here in Australia?
Thankyou for your blog Andrew! Thankyou for your work in the area of animal welfare. Interesting things are happening in Europe in regard to the treatment of animals etc. The Dutch Parliament has The Party for the Animals which now has 2 members of the Lower House and a Senator. I think there are going to be great changes over this century, hopefully for the better for all species!
I find it hard to believe that anyone who supported Breed Specific Legislation which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of dogs simply based on their looks can pass themselves off as animal welfare advocate. But then, Liberals passing themselves off as Democrats, well that was another con wasn’t it?
I have zero idea what you’re talking about in your comment christopher – including your juvenile comment suggesting any Liberals “passed themselves off as Democrats.”
Andrew your support for banning the importation of Pit Bulls (whatever they are) forms the basis for all BSL in Australia and the seizure and killing of thousands of dogs based on their presumed breed, not deed. Not only does this strike at the heart of Australian’s civil rights but enshrines animal cruelty in law, something one would have trouble believing an animal rights campaigner would be party to! But then a tory is a tory is a tory, whether their trying to rebadge themselves as a Democrat or something else. If one has trouble defing where they stand in the political spectrum why shouldn’t there be confusion in the animal welfare arena. It’s all too much for that steely-eyed sense of intense boredom of having to deal with the public. All public commentators could get on with their commentating (or blogs) if it wasn’t for … the public asking pesky questions or pointing out their contradictions.
Christopher – you ask questions, regardless of whether they are ‘pesky’ or otherwise, as much as you like. But that doesn’t negate the fact that you’re talking rubbish and your name calling – whether it be ‘Liberal’ or ‘tory’ – is simply bizarre.
There is no national legislation preventing any particular breed of dog from being sold in Australia. Such matters are dealt with at state level. There are plenty of species which are prevented from being imported into Australia for all sorts of reasons. The presence of such a Regulation preventing a particular animal from being imported into the country – which are put in place by governments, not by the Senate – has nothing to do with any state legislation regarding whether or not a particular animal can be bred or sold. And quite how preventing dogs from being bred – i.e. born – “results in the death of thousands of dogs” or “enshrines animal cruelty in law” is beyond me.
How about you try basing your comments – or even your insults – on reality?
Calling me pesky and claiming I speak rubbish is … well rubbish. Abuse is the province of the out-argued Andrew.
While in the senate u supported the banning of importing breeds of dog. Have I got it wrong? If so I gladly take it all back. But that legislation is the sole basis of state breed bans which have resulted in thousands of dogs being seized and killed based on their looks. Qld is in fact the worst case scenario of dogs being seized and killed. To support such legislation which incorporates animal cruelty in law and then wrap the mantra of animal lover around oneself is in fact … ridiculous IMHO. On top of it all to claim ignorance of the canine holocaust occurring in your own state, well, does ignorance really stretch so far?
Since breed specific legislation doesn’t achieve anything in Qld local govt officers can enter someone’s house, yes Andrew their house, not just property on the suspicion they own a banned breed and without a warrant. Imagine that Andrew, makes one hark back for the days of Phil and the anti-terror laws. how long do u think it’ll be before turbaned owners doors are battered down? “Honestly your honour I thought it was a banned breed I saw!” says ole plod.
No Andrew, the Dems were simply tory’s fooling people with their tosh on animal welfare and human rights. Once Australia took a turn to the right, Australia didn’t need them anymore.
For a dose of reality Andrew ask your local RSPCA what they do with the thousands of Pits that come into their “care” each year? Then ask yourself if you can’t get it right on companion animals, what can you get it right on.
For the third time Christopher, you are wrong. Seeing you are the one engaging in puerile and incorrect abuse, I can only use your own words as an indication that you are being “out-argued”. Although in truth, it’s not a matter of anyone being “out-argued.” It is simply a matter of factual accuracy.
No – it isn’t. You are simply wrong. The federal laws and regulations governing what animals, insects, plants, fish, etc can be imported into Australia do precisely that – govern what can be imported into Australia. They do not automatically create a set of state laws about what animals people are allowed to have – unless that animal has been illegally imported. If a person knowingly imports an animal (or anything else) which it is illegal to import, than they are the one who is responsible if the animal/bird/fish/reptile, etc is sezied.
If a breed of dog (or other animal, reptile, fish, etc) is deemed illegal to possess under STATE laws (which have do not automatically flow from federal import controls), then (a) that is a matter for the state Parliament, and (b) it is the person who chose to possess a breed they know is illegal who is responsible for the animal being seized and thus for what happens to it. Those who choose to continue to breed such animals locally in full knowledge of this are even more culpable. To suggest they would be animal lovers to knowingly put an animal in that situation is a sick joke.
Laws governing when and why Qld local government officers can enter a person’s proterty are determined by the state parliament. They have absolutely nothing to do with Customs Regulations.
You may think that “animal welfare and human rights” is “tosh”, but I certainly don’t. Neither did the Democrats, as the historical record amply demonstrates. It sounds like you might be more suited to the Tories from what you say, but frankly I don’t care about lables much. I prefer accuracy and results.
Ignorance is bliss Andrew. One doesn’t have to think about issues, just mantras. Relying on the “Nuremburg excuse” however is quite appalling. Breed Specific Legislation exists in Australia because of the Federal import bans. The people responsible for those bans are resposnsible for the canine holocaust, denier though u may be. Dogs don’t just disappear because people like you want them to, the people doing the killing are responsible. Bad laws should be ignored, otherwise we wouldn’t have a Franklin above Gordon or many Jews saved in Europe would be dead; because people ignored bad laws. Biodiversity issues aside people who breed such banned breeds are at the forefront of human rights law, something you quite obviosly are not. Encouraging animal cruelty then wrapping oneself with the mantra of animal lover is not just deceptive but untrue. It may get u lauded at dinner parties but animals will continue to die for the cost of the booze consumed. Opposing animal cruelty means opposing all animal cruelty, not just for the animals u like. Kinda like supporting free speech means supporting speech u don’t like. Somehow I believe you will fail to make the connection.
Interesting that we are having this debate on a day when another child almost lost her face from a non-banned breed. Not only were u wrong when u said Pits were “dangerous dogs” (and as an aside called the minister an idiot) but u are wrong now.
Animal cruelty is where u find it Andrew, not where the votes lie.
“Ignorance is bliss Andrew.”
If you say so. But even in your blissful state, you should know that repeating falsehoods does not make them any less false, no matter how often you do it. You clearly know little about this issue and nothing at all about my record on it. Making things up doesn’t count.
“people who breed banned breeds are at the forefront of human rights law”
Wow! Who would have thought, people who deliberately breed banned animals – and no doubt be able to make an ever bigger profit from selling the animals because of their banned status – not only then blame others if those animals are confiscated, but also put them selves forward as being “at the forefront of human rights law”!
And you have the gall to suggest you care about animal welfare. As you say, “encouraging animal cruelty then wrapping oneself with the mantra of animal lover is not just deceptive but untrue.”
Not only are you happy to continuously repeat things that are blatantly and provably false, you are also clearly a hypocrite. If you knew even the first thing about the Nuremberg Defence – not an excuse – you would know that it was based on people trying to defend their crimes by claiming they were obliged to follow orders. I am not using any excuse, and nor have I followed any one else’s orders. The only defence I am using is a reliance on basic and easily provable facts.
“Animal cruelty is where u find it Andrew, not where the votes lie.”
How very true. And I must say I’ve never found many votes in fighting against animal cruelty, which is part of why there is still so much animal cruelty around. If anything, speaking out against animal cruelty regularly is likely to risk losing votes, as it leaves you open to attack by those who dismiss such issues as minor.
In any case, out of all the many things I’ve done promoting the need for stronger laws protecting animals against cruelty (and better enforcement of those laws), none would have received less attention than this issue. Apart from the nonsense you insist on regularly repeating here, I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone from the public make a single comment about it to me – at dinner parties or anywhere else (not that I’m a big fan of dinner parties, and it’s been rare for me to be lauded at any of the ones I have had to go to over the years)
However, just to avoid having to go over and over this ground forever, here are some further facts, just in case there’s anyone reading who might be interested in them:
The federal import ban regarding a number of dog breeds was put in place by the federal government in the 1990s (which also happened before I was even in the Senate). They remain in place and there has been no attempt made by any federal government since for that ban to be removed for the general public. As far as I know, no state government has requested it either. These bans do not automatically create bans on breeding or possessing these dogs at state level – that is a responsibility and decision of state governments.
In 2004 I did successfully prevent a slight change being made to Customs Regulations which would have allowed some of these dog breeds to be imported solely for scientific purposes – mainly because those scientific purposes were not and could not be identified, and I believe controls over animal experimentation are too weak in Australia. I am not a big fan of opening up a possibility for dogs to be experimented on when no details of the possible experiments are provided, and it is not possible to publicly monitor what happens to them. This Regulation did not in any way open up the possibility of those dogs being used for breeding for public use (unless it was done illegally). Although as the relevant breeds of dogs are already in Australia in any case and some people continue to breed them, the point is somewhat moot.
For those who are really keen, the full Senate debate on that matter can be read in the Senate Hansard of 30 November, 2004 – Customs Regulations disallowance.
(And I didn’t call the Minister an idiot during the Senate debate on the topic, so I don’t know what that one’s about either. In fact, having just done a Hansard search, I can’t find any example of my calling any Minister an idiot – which surprises me a bit, as there were more than a few times when it would have been merited)
Animal cruelty is where you find it – especially in Tasmania
The last couple of months have seen Tasmania, and the rest of the country, rocked by cases of egregious and serial animal cruelty by farmers.
On May 8, 2009, the ABC’s Stateline program showed footage of appalling cruelty to pigs on Gary William Oliver’s Longerenong pig farm in the State’s north. The farm was raided by activist Emma Haswell, and showed emaciated pigs in under-sized sow stalls, without water, some unable to stand because of severe abscesses and others with open wounds infested by maggots. The pig farm is a major supplier to the self-proclaimed ‘fresh food people’, Woolworths, which continues to deal with Oliver.
Oliver was ordered in May by the Scottsdale Magistrates Court to enter a plea to the multiple cruelty and aggravated cruelty charges by June 30, but failed to do so.
Earlier in the month, Glen Peter Balke, of Sun Valley Poultry was convicted and fined in the Hobart Magistrates Court. An audit by DPIW found hens mired in manure and crammed into cages to such an extent that they could not stand naturally.
Roderick Neil Mitchell, a dairy farmer from Redpa in Tasmania’s north west is facing about 200 charges, mostly cruelty and aggravated cruelty. The charges date back more than 2 years, yet only a handful have been dealt with. Hundreds of Mitchell’s cows and calves have died in this time.
Why does Mitchell still have animals? 78 have been seized, but the authorities, and the Minister David Llewellyn, claim he cannot be stopped because he has not (yet) been convicted.
Tasmania’s Premier David Bartlett promised a “kind, clever, connected Tasmania” when he became Premier. Farm animals are excluded.
For full reports, please visit http://www.stoptac.org